AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

Review: Leopard's Time Machine

updated 10:35 pm EDT, Wed October 31, 2007

leopard review part two

Time Machine is arguably the most promoted feature of Leopard, designed to make backup functional and accessible to the average user, as most users are put off by the setup and maintenance required of professional backup solutions. For the basic user, Time Machine is approachable and doesn't require much advanced comprehension to set up, so it succeeds in this regard. The real question is whether it will stand up to a conventional backup solution, and if it will suffice for the needs of more experienced users who have more exacting needs. Read on for the second segment of our multi-part Leopard review.

by MacNN Staff




  1. FastAMX79

    Joined: Dec 1969


    hold on...

    A front page link for this story on MacNN, which takes you to Electronista, which links to part 2 of the story back to MacNN?? Is this a sick joke??

  1. robttwo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    slime machine

    Why does the most sophisticated OS in the world have this sleazy implementation of a back-up programóread: no advanced options. Ehatever happened to having 2 levels of user interaction - "novice" or easy, and "advanced." I don't know what truly professional user (see below) wants to turn their back-up procedure into basically an all-or-nothing thing.

    The "big file" caveat: Golly gee, now who would be using MACs for large movie files, large graphic files, large audio files, and can't afford ANY kind if performance hit while doing them?


  1. nhmlco

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Don't Use It

    The review pans the Time Machine interface for "professionals", but fails to mention the readily available alternative: Just skip the special effects and go to the backup drive and find the files you want.

    TM mirrors your folder hierarchy, so if you need Users > Me > Document > stuff.txt, just get Users > Me > Document > stuff.txt in the latest backup folder.

  1. chulitomio

    Joined: Dec 1969




  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: ultra thin

    As for 12" ultra-slim portable, the market for those is negligible.

    Well, there's three people on MacNN boards who want one. Three out of 20. That's something!

    And who says that, because a market is neglible, it shouldn't be sought? Technically, Mikey Dell would be right back in 1998. The Mac market was neglibile. I guess you're lucky they decided not to just ditch the whole Mac out the window.

    As for 12" ultra-slim portable, the market for those is negligible. Just look at the rest of the market (i.e. Windows world). How many 12" slim ones do you see? They sure are less than 5% of the market.

    Yet if they were such a marginal market, why do so many vendors still sell them? Gee, could it be that they're still a profitable device?

    There was a reason why 12" PowerBook was killed. Apple doesn't sell devices that don't make it money.

    No, it was killed because Apple couldn't mentally handle the concept of having two 12" laptops and confusing its ever-stupid customer base.

    Plus, the 12" powerbook was a weak sibling to the rest of the powerbook line, more of a tweaked iBook then a shrunken powerbook (no slot, none of the extra "cool" features, all of the price).

    They weren't selling enough of those to make it worthwhile. I doubt anything has changed there. To all those (very vocal) people waiting for this, you have two hard choices: either go Windows, or accept slightly bigger, bulkier (and most likely cheaper) MacBook.

    Is this the "Apple Way"? You'll like what we give you or s**** you? And a MacBook is a poor comparison to a 'pro' laptop, esp lacking in nice pro features and styling (nothing said "professional" for me then walking into a meeting with a shiny white iBook!).

  1. Deal

    Joined: Dec 1969



    This article is fine, but give me a break on the comments! Apple builds an easy to use backup solution that your GRANDMA can use, and you slam it?

    Apple isn't stopping you from using whatever backup solution you want. Hopefully they'll continue to create "Backup" as well, which lets you do some of these things.

    I have no problem with this article except for the fact that it boasts about WIndows replace feature which only gives users a false sense of security while taking up more space on their existing HD.

    Time Machine is a GOOD thing and does what it intended to do. In fact, how many backup programs do you know of that will continue to backup when the backup drive is out of space? That is an example of obvious genius. If you setup dad's computer to backup using some "other" backup solution and it runs out of space it's not backing up.

    And Testudo... your comments must be migrating. If Apple had done that, you'd be slamming them.

  1. TheBum

    Joined: Dec 1969


    more research needed

    While the article contained some good information, one glaring error caught my eye.

    The author stated that a local hard drive is needed and cites the lack of support for Airdisk as preventing network backups. What he failed to take into account is that Time Machine works just fine when using a volume shared from another Leopard-ized Mac.

    Also, he praises Windows for not requiring separate storage for its recovery feature, but what happens when the hard drive dies? Answer: You lose your originals and backups.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented